I begin by admitting that what is called open ministry has given occasion to the flesh. But I do not think the remedy for it is to deny the presence and operations of the Spirit of God. Further, while I admit that the flesh has taken occasion from spiritual liberty to take license to itself, as God has warned us it would, and while I think that flesh acting thus ought, as in every other case, to be judged by the Church, if the individual does not judge it for himself, I have no hesitation in saying that I have found spiritual devotedness, and spiritual intelligence, and brotherly joy, unequivocally inferior, and a very carnal following of particular ways of thinking taking their place, wherever teachers (with a comfortable opinion of themselves, because able by natural qualifications to be acceptable to many, without denying they might have gift), have absorbed into their own hands the ministry of the Word. It is and has been in all ages one of the first symptoms of spiritual decline in the Church. Another consequence is that sisters lose a most blessed place which God has given to them in the Church, and take one which He has not given and which is really a dishonor to them before God.
Moreover, I would press upon every heart, and especially upon those who would act on the deplorable and unchristian principle of “having a right to speak,” that grace is swift to hear and slow to speak, and that while faithful in the exercise of what God has given, one must ever be ready to esteem another better than oneself. But I believe that the love of power is to be dreaded in those who can gratify the ears and minds of many (and that is not edification), as much as the love of doing in those who can please but few: and this especially where spiritual power is on the decline, and teaching is looked to in order to stimulate, instead of the Lord enjoyed in grace. The consequence is, you will find more or less the teacher take the place of the Lord. Seemly flesh is not more pleasant to God than rude flesh, though it pave the way more easily for the Church's contentedly leaving God and forgetting His presence. Teaching, precious as it is, is not His presence. I dread much when I hear people saying, “dear Mr. Such-an-one.” It may be accompanied with grace in other ways; but l do not think they would have so spoken of Paul or Apollos, when the grace and holy power which puts the conscience in the presence of Christ was in its energy, though they would have esteemed them very highly in love for their work's sake.
You may perhaps think I am blaming others: I am not. I have seen the same spirit working as regards myself; but I think I may honestly say I have struggled against it, though this in the feebleness of the Church as to laborers is not easy; but in trusting God for this, I have found that blessing has followed, whatever the danger seemed. I believe that the Holy Ghost dwells in the Church. This will never make man careless in watching over the saints for their good—quite the contrary; but the belief of it will hinder his taking the Spirit's place. God will be respected in the Church, and His Spirit in the whole body and in the least of its members. And those that honor Him, He will honor.
I do not suppose that you can force, so as to be profitable, the speaking of those who have little gift or but a few words to say. The forcing a member to act may not restore the tone of the body, want of which has disabled the member from acting; but to take this state as the healthful one, because the acting of the member made the body in its sickly state ill at ease, is a great mistake. This is the progress of the thing: when real and fresh joy in the Lord is there, and the saints think much of the Lord, a few words spoken about Him recall Him, and they are full of joy and happy. If another speak largely of His grace (though in fellowship this would to me be exceptional), they feed: Christ is still thought of, His glory present, and the soul perhaps carries away subject for meditation at another moment. The speaker and the hearers together think of Christ. Where the Lord is much less thought of, the few very same words would not recall Christ, scarcely at all, to the heart, because He is not there in the same way, and they are wearisome, they do not stimulate; and he who was wont so to speak, thinks himself and his gift despised. Perhaps, too, some defect of education or the like has accompanied these few words: it was quite, or almost, overlooked when Christ was very present; but now it is very evident and displeasing. If sometimes he went beyond what the Spirit gave, this, though perceived and (if there was faithfulness) mentioned in grace, with the recognition of Christ in all the rest, now that Christ is not the source of the same blessing, has not the same place in the hearer, becomes remarked and offensive, because what man is, is now much more prominent. Hence the more accomplished. teacher, who does not offend the ear and taste, becomes necessary—a dreadful snare to himself and to the whole assembly, But when this comes to be insisted on as the right thing, and those who have educational qualifications come to insist on this state of things as the right state, it is very sad. Failure, and building on failure to sanction the position which the flesh would assume for its ease because of failure, are very different things. The first, man has to confess; the last is assuming his ease in it, and setting aside God and his own responsibility, at once. And I do avow I have a little distrust of this coming always from those who take the whole matter to themselves on this ground. I think, if the history of the Church be examined, it will be found that the decline of any revival always took this road.
One word more of general remark. I do not at all say that, in any assembly where such is the state of things, those who can edify very little, or not at all, are to force themselves on the assembly, or to be encouraged in that state of things to speak. If it does not edify, it can be of no use. The point is that all should feel what the state of things is, and above all, not sanction as right what is the proof of failure and decay. I have no hesitation in saying that worse spiritual decline is always the consequence.
First, let us remember this, that the presence of gift did not in the smallest degree hinder the working of the flesh in speaking; it was at full work, to the marring of edification, and that in the grossest shape (for men were speaking what nobody understood at all), when the gifts were undeniable. It is not the presence of real gift that is any check to this fleshly confusion. It was the most undeniable utterance—gifts, tongues for example, when there could be no mistake as to the Spirit's power, which were the occasion of carnal confusion.
This is of the last importance; because the assertion is that persons speaking without gift, on the assumption that they have it, produce confusion; and the remedy is that they should recognize that there is no gift now! and thus the ministry be left to persons, gracious persons, no doubt, who by their human attainments are capable of satisfying in general the demands of the flock for instruction. Now the answer at once is that all this is without foundation. The edification of the flock had to be watched over against the license of the flesh where there were gifts, as much as on the assumption that there are none. The question does not lie there at all: the ground of the argument is all a mistake. It lies much more in the spiritual grace, which can maintain the edification of the body.
And just see where this reasoning places me. It destroys absolutely the applicability of Scriptural direction to the assemblies of the saints; so that I have no scriptural rule nor guidance in ordering their edification. I admit that there is a great difference in fact as to gifts. The Church is shorn of well-nigh all, if not all, her glory and ornament, and well has she deserved it. Hence there is a necessary modification in the application: I cannot regulate the speaking of tongues where there are none. But if the principle of ministerial education be different, if the thing regulated by the Scripture does not exist at all in any shape, then the rules for order and edification of the assembly are gone with them. I have a teaching without the operation of the Spirit, and without the regulation of the Spirit. It is not “edification by gift” only that is in question, but it is the existence of any assembly on this principle. It is a new sort of assembly that is proposed, to which the Scriptural directions do not apply—such as have been already formed in the Establishment, and among the Dissenters, and which I have left because they are not Scriptural. Now I am told that it is all a mistake to take these Scriptures and apply them at all, as they are based on the existence of that which exists no more!
It is in vain to say, We meet as brethren, and the ministry is a distinct question. I admit we meet as brethren; but at the same time we meet in the unity of the body where God acts by the members, and it is the Holy Ghost acting in the unity of the body by its members which is called in question; for these members are what are called gifts in Corinthians, and in the use of another word in Ephesians too. It is this that makes the question serious. That the flesh has used liberty for license I do not doubt: the gifts did not hinder that. It may be, too, that in a given assembly there may not be a teacher at all; this is very possible, because the gifts are in the unity of the whole body, not in a single assembly. The state of the Church may make our weakness very apparent in this respect; but if we are humbled, we shall accept this position and be blessed. The attempt to restore gift by, or rather to substitute for it, the quietness which decent human attainments may give, is just to avoid the holy, humble, God-owning confession of the state we have brought the Church to. It is building again (and worse) the things which we have destroyed. It is, after being awakened, refusing to acknowledge and bow our heads, on account of the sorrowful state of the Church; and this I see fast growing in many a mind because of the blessing which God, in His sovereign goodness, deigned to bestow on those who did so own, and humbled themselves on account of that state. The Lord keep us lowly and keeping the word of His patience.
And now as to the arguments based on a certain explanation of the word χάρισμα, to show as briefly as I can (and it will not require many words), that the reasoning is without foundation, the statement unscriptural, and the principle the denial of the Holy Ghost's operations in the Church.
If I might be allowed to suppose a case so very simple that all might understand it (yet in the plainest seriousness), I would say, I mean by “boots” coverings for the feet and ankles, drawn on, without strings and being tied; and I affirm that there are no boots made at Stafford at all. It is replied to me, Why the town lives by making boots, and sends them all over the world. No, I say, there are none made there: that is what a boot really means—at any rate, what I mean by a boot. Would it not be evident that my statement was good for nothing at all, because it was founded upon a meaning which I had attached to the word which did not exist in reality, though some boots might be so made? The reasoning was based on a false ground, and therefore was all invalid. The question is, Are there gifts according to Scripture? If I attach a meaning to the word “gift” which is not scriptural, and then use it to prove, as to the present fact and time, that there are no scriptural gifts, the total fallacy of such a proceeding is evident.
But I shall at once be stopped short by the remark that I must prove that it is not scriptural. This is just what I proceed to do; and from the only possible source of reasoning on it—an examination of Scripture itself. Here is the writer's statement of what gift is. “Χάρισμα, or gift, I look upon as quite distinct from everything of man's doing—distinct from the natural ability or talent he may possess of God—distinct from the improvement and sanctification of that talent; and alike distinct from any attainment he might make by the diligent use of means. It is the Holy Spirit's giving in distinctness to anything we see in man. It is that giving when the power of the Spirit is manifestly seen using the creature indeed, and yet clearly to be distinguished from the creature; as, for instance, we see in the gift of tongues, &c.... So I believe it was of all gifts of the Spirit, &c.... Such I believe to be (of?) the true nature and meaning of gift; and I am not aware that there is any passage in the New Testament in which χάρισμα, or gift, can be shown to be something different from this.” This statement is constantly referred to, and, in substance, repeated. We shall find that it involves the whole question of the presence of the Holy Ghost in the body, the Church; because He must act in some way if He be there—act in the body. I say, “the presence of the Holy Ghost in the body” —not His merely acting in grace in individual minds. This question is entirely overlooked in the writer's statements.
But as to the word “gift” itself, χάρισμα, or gift, is the Holy Spirit's giving, &c. Now, I should not have made any difficulty as to the expression, “gifts of the Spirit,” as a general human expression, sufficiently exact to convey historically what was meant; but when this is insisted on as a definition, it is important to notice that there is no such term in Scripture; and the Holy Ghost is never spoken of as “giving.” Nor do I apprehend that this distinction is without intention on the part of the Divine Spirit. At any r ate, on a very important and delicate subject, it is well, when we are defining, not to speak otherwise than the Word speaks.
Next, that χάρισμα is free gift, or a something freely, given, and not attained by man's labor, is evident: the word means it. But, then, it is quite beside the mark to speak of the word meaning “the Spirit's giving.” First, it is used independently of all question of the Spirit's giving in several passages. In Rom. 5:15, 16; 6:2315But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. (Romans 5:15‑16)
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23), it is the free gift of God unto justification and eternal life; in chap. xi. 29, it is used in the most general way possible, and applied to God's purposes as to the Jews. This the writer recognizes in the latter passage. It is very doubtful whether the statement made there as to χαρἰσματα θεοῦ could be applied to what are called spiritual gifts. At any rate, the word by these passages is proved not to have any particular application to the Spirit's giving in its meaning. “Free gift” is the meaning, and whatever is free gift may be called χάρισμα. Now, here there was nothing of the Spirit being seen, manifestly seen, using the creature, and yet clearly to be distinguished from the creature. This life was, “I live: and yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God.” So that free gift was not necessarily (in the case to which the writer compares it, and which is called effectively χάρισμα) what he affirms in the same place it must be, as the only true meaning of the word: so much the contrary, that in the case alluded to a man could say, “I, yet not I,” and “the life which I live.” That is, precisely the contrary was the case: χάρισμα, or gift, is not what is asserted.
Further, in cases of spiritual gift, properly speaking, I suppose when the apostle preached at Athens when in the synagogues he spoke as a Jew to Jews, he did so in the exercise of his apostolic gift; and yet there is no appearance of such a distinction, before the heathen and the Jews, of “the creature” and “the gift.” That there was great power in what he said, and thus demonstration of the Spirit, I doubt not; but it has no appearance at all of an utterance, as it is called, which attracted supernaturally the attention of the hearers— “the Spirit seen using the creature, and yet clearly to be distinguished from the creature.” Again, I suppose the Epistle to the Hebrews (if it be allowed to be what Peter alludes to as Paul's epistle to the Jews—and at any rate it is the inspired production of the Holy Ghost, as every other epistle) is really by the gift of the Holy Ghost: it is, according to the wisdom given to him, a gift, the writer insists—indistinctly. Yet there is nothing but a spiritual mind developing certain great truths by the Word—by inspiration, by gift, I doubt not; but how in a way clearly distinguished from the creature?—i.e., distinguished evidently from spiritual attainment, however sanctified, on the face of it, as “tongues, working of miracles, healing,” &c. That it is real gift and real inspiration, I have not the smallest doubt: that is just what I insist upon; but I do not see anything of this miraculous form of utterance or power, so distinct from any improvement and sanctification of talent he possesses of God, or attainment he might make by the diligent use of means. I do not see that this distinction was so strong in the apostle's mind when he says, “when for the time ye might to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you,” &c.
( To be continued.)